I (mostly) agree. I believe that bootc might have played a role in EU_OS’ decision to pick Fedora over openSUSE. Back then, it wasn’t possible to use it outside of Fedora’s ecosystem. But Bootcrew has since released bootc images for other distros; including openSUSE. So hopefully they will reconsider it.
Should I just run all these updates as they come up?
For best practices related to security, yes.
Do you all run these updates as they pop up?
I’m on a Fedora-derivative that does automatic updates in the background. It applies those at least once a day.
Are you all getting this many updates on Fedora
Yes. This is standard procedure on all (semi-)rolling release distros.
or is it something specific to me and the apps I’m running?
Nah.
Is there a way to de-select some updates if I don’t want to run all of them?
I believe it’s possible. But this Fedora maintainer mentions the following (and I quote):
“Fedora is a major-version stable system, which means that it isn’t guaranteed safe to cherry-pick updates. The only reliable state for a major-version stable system is “fully updated”. While rpm can detect major-version changes in dependencies, it doesn’t detect minor-version changes in dependencies. That means that a package that you cherry-pick might appear to have all of its dependencies met from rpm’s point of view, but it might crash at runtime because those dependencies don’t have features that are required by the application.”
Should I ignore daily updates
It’s your PC. You do you. I would personally advise against it.
and install them less frequently, say monthly?
I have noticed that updating once every couple of days is relatively standard. I suppose it’s ‘fine’~ish as long as it doesn’t exceed two weeks. But monthly would definitely be stretching it. At that point…, perhaps considering a distro with a slower release cadence makes more sense.
Meaning, I’m not super interested in being the glitch finder. If there’s a bug in an update, I’d rather have somebody else find it first and have the update patched.
So…, if that’s what this is all about, then the following is worth noting:
Great answer. Thank you!
I hope openSUSE will eventually get around and enjoy some much deserved momentum. I feel it isn’t quite reaching its full potential as a project, because it (somehow) fails to attract a bigger audience. Don’t get me wrong, it’s definitely doing well and it holds its own admirably. But, (going off of ProtonDB’s data) where Fedora (together with its derivatives) managed to effectively increase its market share by at least 400%, openSUSE[1] -despite Tumbleweed making more sense for gaming- was only able to keep what it had…
It’s the green colored bar found right under Manjaro ↩︎
If I may, would you seriously consider switching to openSUSE Slowroll if Manjaro’s situation doesn’t improve? Or, are there reasons beyond its beta status that hold you back?
My apologies for inserting this “akshually ☝️”, but I’m almost 100% sure that the distro that just didn’t make the cut -the one represented in green, right under Manjaro- is openSUSE. It’s possible to deduce this from an earlier report of Boiling Steam and its respective graph.
But, perhaps unsurprisingly, I don’t ever recall seeing Slackware in any of these.
FWIW, similarly, we can deduce the grey one right below openSUSE to be Gentoo from this report and its respective graph. And, finally, the blue one below Gentoo to be Garuda from the respective graph of this report.
The last distro I was able to identify is Solus. Unfortunately, it’s only relevant in the very beginning. It used to be the best performing grey one. See this report and its respective graph.
Asahi Linux is basically top notch engineering for free. Unless it gets (really) big, I don’t see any reason for Apple to even consider putting it down.
Yeah, NixOS is excellent. But, for nix (or close enough) to be the future, an upgrade path should exist for other distros. But, for some reason, I don’t really see any such efforts. Like, where are the nix-variants of other distros?
FWIW, Bootcrew has created bootc-variants of many other distros. And, even before, both Endless OS and GNOME OS offered examples of non-Fedora distros with ostree.
EDIT: TIL
Perhaps I should have been more clear. My apologies. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that -in the case of Fedora Atomic- layering remains a necessity (for most users). This thread goes over it in more detail.
flatpak
Technically speaking, the flatpak format isn’t even as limited as some make it out to be. For example, software like Bottles have offered CLI/TUI functionality through it. But Flathub, its most popular storefront, does put a limitation on submissions. Which means that it’s effectively not even competing with other package managers that (conventionally) try to offer a broader set of software.
Furthermore, even if the flatpak package exists, not all functionality is retained. For example, the situation around native messaging is still a mess. This prevents e.g. your flatpak browser from communicating with your locally installed password manager. While a(n ugly) workaround exists, it’s quite maddening that it hasn’t been resolved in all these years 😅.
distrobox/toolbx
This is actually a mess. See this comment elsewhere under this post for a bit more elaboration.
Overall, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment.
The suggestion to just use
toolkitstoolboxis not for mortals.
I am also not convinced that it was ever meant as the endgame. Like, toolbox still doesn’t offer a mechanic to upgrade a(ll) container(s) without entering one. The last time I used it, it also shat itself whenever the old pet container became EOL and desired a ‘system update’ to become functional. IIRC, distrobox doesn’t fare any better at this. Thus, coming with what looks like planned obsolescence; with the recreation of the pet containers every couple of months as a result. I suppose the solution is picking an image that’s supposed to be rolling-release. Which is why I think this workflow suits Aeon better.
I could see it becoming the future. But only under a couple of scenarios.
Scenario A: It becomes (strictly) better and/or easier than the alternative. Kinda like how systemd effectively replaced SysVinit within a couple of years, simply because it was a more sane alternative. But this is reliant on the read-only aspect being put in place without affecting existing workflows on traditional distros. So, as Fedora Atomic is the atomic distro I’m most familiar with, I’ll provide explicit examples from it:
dnf should (somehow) continue to function. It could even be an alias (or something) that invokes something else entirely. I don’t even think most users will care for what exactly happens in the background, as long as the functional expectation is being met.Scenario B: It’s enforced on us by (some of) our Linux overlords and/or expected by (parts of) the Desktop Linux stack. Kinda like how the GNOME desktop environment currently has dependencies that are systemd-components. Thus, requiring some hacking to make it work in its absence. Currently, I can only see some RHEL(-adjacent) projects committing to this.
But I think both of the above scenarios are at least 5 years away. While atomic/immutable distros enjoy a healthy (perhaps even generous) amount of development, AFAIK none of them are actually 100% feature-complete[1] compared to their traditional counterparts. So, fixing (most of) the remaining edge cases to make migration possible for every enthusiast that even considers switching, should probably be their priority.
To be clear, it’s probably at like 95% or so. ↩︎
I didn’t really mean it in the sense that the communities of different atomic/immutable engage regarding the trade-offs associated by their respective methods of achieving atomicity/immutability. And, honestly, I’d actually love to see more of that. Even if NixOS users would dunk on the rest, at least until the learning curves are brought up.
Instead, what we often find are unproductive threads like this one 😅. In which, naysayers and proponents act like they’re engaging, but I simply fail to understand what’s happening.
There’s also a lot of zealous discourse on the subject of atomic/immutable distros.
Not the person you asked. But the only thing I can think of, would be how the flatpak’s sandbox might cause friction. Most of the time, you won’t even notice it. But, once every while, it shows its ugly face.
For example, the situation around native messaging is still a mess. This prevents e.g. your flatpak browser from communicating with your locally installed password manager. While a(n ugly) workaround exists, it’s quite maddening that it hasn’t been resolved in all these years 😅.
Many different solutions exist, even native ones. But I’d have to mention Sandboxie as probably the most popular option.
uses apt
May I ask why you seem to be married to the use of apt?
Just couldn’t pass up on the opportunity to insert this banger.
First of all, I’m sorry I can’t provide you with a video; I tried attaching it to the post but won’t let me attach any other than photos.
Gifs work. There are some pointers over here.
You seem to have the false notion that corporate distros are safe (or something). But, that’s not true. Look e.g. at the demise of Clear Linux OS.
For (perhaps) a better assessment on whether a distro is well-established[1] or not, consider looking at the following factors:
TL;DR: If you want to be absolutely safe, then I’d recommend Arch, Debian or Gentoo.
I.e. that it will not cease existing overnight. ↩︎
From their wiki:
The em dashes definitely gives me LLM-vibes. Regardless, it mostly comes over as Void Linux with KDE Plasma and some onboarding. And I suppose they have their own repository. Furthermore, I think it’s a very new distro as their Github activities only go two months back.
To OP: Why would you use this over (some) other Void derivatives? Secondly, as you state
Why even bother with any of these?